the soul of man-第2节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



virtuous　poor；　one　can　pity　them；　of　course；　but　one　cannot

possibly　admire　them。　　They　have　made　private　terms　with　the　enemy；

and　sold　their　birthright　for　very　bad　pottage。　　They　must　also　be

extraordinarily　stupid。　　I　can　quite　understand　a　man　accepting

laws　that　protect　private　property；　and　admit　of　its　accumulation；

as　long　as　he　himself　is　able　under　those　conditions　to　realise

some　form　of　beautiful　and　intellectual　life。　　But　it　is　almost

incredible　to　me　how　a　man　whose　life　is　marred　and　made　hideous　by

such　laws　can　possibly　acquiesce　in　their　continuance。



However；　the　explanation　is　not　really　difficult　to　find。　　It　is

simply　this。　　Misery　and　poverty　are　so　absolutely　degrading；　and

exercise　such　a　paralysing　effect　over　the　nature　of　men；　that　no

class　is　ever　really　conscious　of　its　own　suffering。　　They　have　to

be　told　of　it　by　other　people；　and　they　often　entirely　disbelieve

them。　　What　is　said　by　great　employers　of　labour　against　agitators

is　unquestionably　true。　　Agitators　are　a　set　of　interfering；

meddling　people；　who　come　down　to　some　perfectly　contented　class　of

the　community；　and　sow　the　seeds　of　discontent　amongst　them。　　That

is　the　reason　why　agitators　are　so　absolutely　necessary。　　Without

them；　in　our　incomplete　state；　there　would　be　no　advance　towards

civilisation。　　Slavery　was　put　down　in　America；　not　in　consequence

of　any　action　on　the　part　of　the　slaves；　or　even　any　express　desire

on　their　part　that　they　should　be　free。　　It　was　put　down　entirely

through　the　grossly　illegal　conduct　of　certain　agitators　in　Boston

and　elsewhere；　who　were　not　slaves　themselves；　nor　owners　of

slaves；　nor　had　anything　to　do　with　the　question　really。　　It　was；

undoubtedly；　the　Abolitionists　who　set　the　torch　alight；　who　began

the　whole　thing。　　And　it　is　curious　to　note　that　from　the　slaves

themselves　they　received；　not　merely　very　little　assistance；　but

hardly　any　sympathy　even；　and　when　at　the　close　of　the　war　the

slaves　found　themselves　free；　found　themselves　indeed　so　absolutely

free　that　they　were　free　to　starve；　many　of　them　bitterly　regretted

the　new　state　of　things。　　To　the　thinker；　the　most　tragic　fact　in

the　whole　of　the　French　Revolution　is　not　that　Marie　Antoinette　was

killed　for　being　a　queen；　but　that　the　starved　peasant　of　the

Vendee　voluntarily　went　out　to　die　for　the　hideous　cause　of

feudalism。



It　is　clear；　then；　that　no　Authoritarian　Socialism　will　do。　　For

while　under　the　present　system　a　very　large　number　of　people　can

lead　lives　of　a　certain　amount　of　freedom　and　expression　and

happiness；　under　an　industrial…barrack　system；　or　a　system　of

economic　tyranny；　nobody　would　be　able　to　have　any　such　freedom　at

all。　　It　is　to　be　regretted　that　a　portion　of　our　community　should

be　practically　in　slavery；　but　to　propose　to　solve　the　problem　by

enslaving　the　entire　community　is　childish。　　Every　man　must　be　left

quite　free　to　choose　his　own　work。　　No　form　of　compulsion　must　be

exercised　over　him。　　If　there　is；　his　work　will　not　be　good　for

him；　will　not　be　good　in　itself；　and　will　not　be　good　for　others。

And　by　work　I　simply　mean　activity　of　any　kind。



I　hardly　think　that　any　Socialist；　nowadays；　would　seriously

propose　that　an　inspector　should　call　every　morning　at　each　house

to　see　that　each　citizen　rose　up　and　did　manual　labour　for　eight

hours。　　Humanity　has　got　beyond　that　stage；　and　reserves　such　a

form　of　life　for　the　people　whom；　in　a　very　arbitrary　manner；　it

chooses　to　call　criminals。　　But　I　confess　that　many　of　the

socialistic　views　that　I　have　come　across　seem　to　me　to　be　tainted

with　ideas　of　authority；　if　not　of　actual　compulsion。　　Of　course；

authority　and　compulsion　are　out　of　the　question。　　All　association

must　be　quite　voluntary。　　It　is　only　in　voluntary　associations　that

man　is　fine。



But　it　may　be　asked　how　Individualism；　which　is　now　more　or　less

dependent　on　the　existence　of　private　property　for　its　development；

will　benefit　by　the　abolition　of　such　private　property。　　The　answer

is　very　simple。　　It　is　true　that；　under　existing　conditions；　a　few

men　who　have　had　private　means　of　their　own；　such　as　Byron；

Shelley；　Browning；　Victor　Hugo；　Baudelaire；　and　others；　have　been

able　to　realise　their　personality　more　or　less　completely。　　Not　one

of　these　men　ever　did　a　single　day's　work　for　hire。　　They　were

relieved　from　poverty。　　They　had　an　immense　advantage。　　The

question　is　whether　it　would　be　for　the　good　of　Individualism　that

such　an　advantage　should　be　taken　away。　　Let　us　suppose　that　it　is

taken　away。　　What　happens　then　to　Individualism？　　How　will　it

benefit？



It　will　benefit　in　this　way。　　Under　the　new　conditions

Individualism　will　be　far　freer；　far　finer；　and　far　more

intensified　than　it　is　now。　　I　am　not　talking　of　the　great

imaginatively…realised　Individualism　of　such　poets　as　I　have

mentioned；　but　of　the　great　actual　Individualism　latent　and

potential　in　mankind　generally。　　For　the　recognition　of　private

property　has　really　harmed　Individualism；　and　obscured　it；　by

confusing　a　man　with　what　he　possesses。　　It　has　led　Individualism

entirely　astray。　　It　has　made　gain　not　growth　its　aim。　　So　that　man

thought　that　the　important　thing　was　to　have；　and　did　not　know　that

the　important　thing　is　to　be。　　The　true　perfection　of　man　lies；　not

in　what　man　has；　but　in　what　man　is。



Private　property　has　crushed　true　Individualism；　and　set　up　an

Individualism　that　is　false。　　It　has　debarred　one　part　of　the

community　from　being　individual　by　starving　them。　　It　has　debarred

the　other　part　of　the　community　from　being　individual　by　putting

them　on　the　wrong　road；　and　encumbering　them。　　Indeed；　so

completely　has　man's　personality　been　absorbed　by　his　possessions

that　the　English　law　has　always　treated　offences　against　a　man's

property　with　far　more　severity　than　offences　against　his　person；

and　property　is　still　the　test　of　complete　citizenship。　　The

industry　necessary　for　the　making　money　is　also　very　demoralising。

In　a　community　like　ours；　where　property　confers　immense

distinction；　social　position；　honour；　respect；　titles；　and　other

pleasant　things　of　the　kind；　man；　being　naturally　ambitious；　makes

it　his　aim　to　accumulate　this　property；　and　goes　on　wearily　and

tediously　accumulating　it　long　after　he　has　got　far　more　than　he

wants；　or　can　use；　or　enjoy；　or　perhaps　even　know　of。　　Man　will

kill　himself　by　overwork　in　order　to　secure　property；　and　really；

considering　the　enormous　advantages　that　property　brings；　one　is

hardly　surprised。　　One's　regret　is　that　society　should　be

constructed　on　such　a　basis　that　man　has　been　forced　into　a　groove

in　which　he　cannot　freely　develop　what　is　wonderful；　and

fascinating；　and　delightful　in　him　…　in　which；　in　fact；　he　misses

the　true　pleasure　and　joy　of　living。　　He　is　also；　under　existing

conditions；　very　insecure。　　An　enormously　wealthy　merchant　may　be　…

often　is　…　at　every　moment　of　his　life　at　the　mercy　of　things　that

are　not　under　his　control。　　If　the　wind　blows　an　extra　point　or　so；

or　the　weather　suddenly　changes；　or　some　trivial　thing　happens；　his

ship　may　go　down；　his　speculations　may　go　wrong；　and　he　finds

himself　a　poor　man；　with　his　social　position　quite　gone。　　Now；

nothing　should　be　able　to　harm　a　man　except　himself。　　Nothing

should　be　able　to　rob　a　man　at　all。　　What　a　man　really　has；　is　what

is　in　him。　　What　is　outside　of　him　should　be　a　matter　of　no

importance。



With　the　abolition　of　private　property；　then；　we　shall　have　true；

beautiful；　healthy　Individualism。　　Nobody　will　waste　his　life　in

accumulating　things；　and　the　symbols　for　things。　　One　will　live。

To　live　is　the　rarest　thing　in　the　world。　　Most　people　exist；　that

is　all。



It　is　a　question　whether　we　have　ever　seen　the　full　expression　of　a

personality；　except　on　the　imaginative　plane　of　art。　　In　action；　we

never　have。　　Caesar；　says　Mommsen；　was　the　complete　and　perfect

man。　　But　how　tragically　insecure　was　Caesar！　　Wherever　there　is　a

man　who　exercises　authority；　there　is　a　man　who　resists　authority。

Caesar　was　very　perfect；　but　his　perfection　travelled　by　too

dangerous　a　road。　　Marcus　Aurelius　was　the　perfect　man；　says　Renan。

Yes；　the　great　emperor　was　a　perfect　man。　　But　how　intolerable　were

the　endless　claims　upon　him！　　He　staggered　under　the　burden　of　the

empire。　　He　was　conscious　how　inadequate　one　man　was　to　bear　the

weight　of　that　Titan　and　too　vast　orb。　　What　I　mean　by　a　perfect

man　is　one　who　develops　under　perfect　conditions；　one　who　is　not

wounded；　or　worried　or　maimed；　or　in　danger。　　Most　personalities

have　been　obliged　to　be　rebels。　　Half　their　strength　has　been

wasted　in　friction。　　Byron's　personality；　for　instance；　was

terribly　wasted　in　its　battle　with　the　stupidity；　and　hypocrisy；

and　Philistinism　of　the　English。　　Such　battles　do　not　always

intensify　strength：　　they　often　exaggerate　weakness。　　Byron　was

never　able　to　give　us　what　he　might　have　given　us。　　Sh